1

SPIRALing IPBES

The Brief in brief

The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was established in 2012. This

brief presents the IPBES and outlines some

recommendations based on SPIRAL expertise and SPI tools.

Setting the scene

IPBES was established after years of consultations and

negotiations (including the IMoSEB-process1, and three

multi-stakeholder meetings from 2008 to 20112) in a

plenary meeting held in Panama in April 2012. The

overarching objective of IPBES is “to strengthen the

science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem

services for the conservation and sustainable use of

biodiversity, long-term human well-being and

sustainable development”. The structure of IPBES

includes: a small Secretariat based in Bonn, Germany; a

decision-making Plenary composed of members

(governments) and observers, a Bureau and a

Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP)

The IPBES has four functions:

1- Knowledge generation

The first objective of the knowledge generation function is

to develop common frameworks, methodologies and basic

understanding to support decisions-making processes. The

second objective is to make sure knowledge gaps are

addressed and relevant research strategies are implemented.

Finally this function should address issues relating to

including various types of knowledge (e.g. indigenous),

supporting observation and monitoring programmes and

ensuring open access to existing data.

2 - Assessments

The objective here is to address user needs by carrying out

assessments of existing knowledge including different types

1 The consultation on an International Mechanism of Scientific

Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB) was initiated after the

conference Biodiversity: Science and Governance, held in Paris in

January 2005 and lasted for three years until 2008 2 all information on meetings are available at: http://www.ipbes.net/

(resources/previous meetings)

of knowledge (scientific, traditional, grey literature, citizen

science…)

Discussions are on-going as to the scale at which

assessments will be performed and how assessment topics

will be identified, prioritized and their scoping3 defined.

3- Policy support

The objective is to promote a better use of existing

knowledge by identifying and promoting tools to transfer

knowledge to policy makers in an efficient way, e.g.scenarios,

indicators or models. The overarching challenge is to

achieve one of the founding objectives of IPBES: to provide

knowledge which is “policy relevant but not prescriptive”4

4- Capacity building

The objective is to catalyse and build the capacity at various

levels to implement effective science-policy interfaces and

to enable all actors to contribute efficiently to the different

functions of the IPBES.

The intended structure and processes

Regarding the structure, concern has been raised about the

composition of the MEP (See below key lessons learned).

Potential problems still remain due to significant outstanding

issues concerning decision making procedures (based or

not on consensus), the role of UN bodies as host

institutions for IPBES, and the question of membership of

regional economic integration organizations (REIOs such as

the EU). In addition, IPBES still needs to address issues

related to how the work programme will be defined and

implemented (e.g. through a more regional approach).

Additional key issues under discussion include the

engagement into IPBES processes of stakeholders, such as

other intergovernmental organizations, international and

regional scientific organizations, environment trust funds,

non-governmental organizations and the private sector. A

Stakeholder Engagement Strategy is under development and

will be discussed at the next plenary in December 2013.

The expected outputs

3 Scoping is still under definition and can encompass the review of

currently available information, relevant scale, cost estimates of

assessments, etc. 4 See Busan outcome at http://www.ipbes.net/resources/previous-

ipbes-meetings/3rd-meeting-on-ipbes.html

2

We can expect IPBES to produce, or trigger the production

of, not only assessment reports on a global scale but also

assessments at other scales and on thematic issues. Main

challenges are related to how stakeholders and different

knowledge types will be involved in designing the outputs

and what communication tools and methodologies will be

used.

The expected effects

At the current state of negotiations no precise judgement

concerning the impact of IPBES on global biodiversity policy

is possible.

Approach taken in SPIRAL to study the test case

SPIRAL members were present at most of the steps of the

preparatory/consultation process: from the Science and

Governance conference in Paris, in 2005 to the IMOSEB

consultations and the multi-stakeholder meetings since

2008 (Putrajaya 2008, Nairobi 2009, Busan 2010), SPIRAL

members also attended the two sessions of a plenary

meeting of IPBES (3-7 October 2011, 16-21 April 2012),

organised a workshop on the policy support function as

part of the intersessional process in December 2011 as well

as various workshops and meetings organised in Europe

during intersessions. In addition, SPIRAL workshops

provided an informal opportunity for several

representatives from EC-DG RTD, EC-DG ENV, national

delegates and UNEP-IPBES Secretariat to further discuss SPI

concepts and attributes.

As SPIRAL members followed closely all IPBES

developments, they could feed some recommendations

during intersessional workshops and consultations. Results

of SPIRAL research on SPIs were used to develop these

recommendations, hence bringing SPIRAL work to the

attention of those designing IPBES structure and processes.

Key lessons learned from the Test Case

We address three main key aspects for which SPIRAL

approach, tools and expertise can provide interesting

insights:

➢ An important aspect of IPBES is the tension between its

legitimacy (political mandate, intergovernmental process)

and its credibility, which heavily depends on the

independence, composition and operation of its

Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) and on the rules and

procedures framing the interactions of the MEP with the

political bodies of IPBES (the Plenary and Bureau).

At the IPBES plenary in Bonn, nominations of MEP members

raised concerns regarding the fair representation of social

sciences and other knowledge holders (indigenous and local

knowledge). Gender balance is also far from being

implemented. A key recommendation would be to ensure

that this panel reaches out beyond the “usual suspects”, i.e.

the biodiversity experts already involved in the

CBD/SBSTTA5 in order to ensure a good representation of

disciplines but also new kinds of expertise.

In terms of independence, the challenge comes from the

Intergovernmental status of IPBES, which implies that

politics is decisive for all rules of procedures and has a

strong influence on the questions selected (“scoping”).

What this will mean in practice is still unclear as one

important element of the rules of procedures is still under

negotiations: whether decisions in plenary should or must

be made by consensus, which would give each single

member state control of the assessments and their use. -

The intergovernmental plenary represents both a risk as

the questions addressed in assessments might be biased by

countries‟ political agendas, and an opportunity as the

“adoption”6 of assessment reports conclusions will have a

powerful impact on policy development and implementation

at national and international level. To safeguard

independence of IPBES, the structure and processes should

allow for the working groups and the MEP to work without

pressure and independently from the intergovernmental

plenary and that the procedures to select

questions/assessment topic be open and transparent, and

allow contribution from stakeholders. In addition, ways

should be found for stakeholders to contribute and to

participate actively in the plenary, helping to ensure that the

process is transparent, inclusive, balanced and relevant.

A key question also concerns the flexibility of the

complex process of IPBES and its adaptability to

unforeseen changes in the socio-economic landscape.

This relates directly to the way requests will be brought

to IPBES and how the scoping process will function. As

IPBES will address complex interrelated biophysical,

socioeconomic and institutional issues, it needs to be

established as a learning institution, adapted to dealing

with complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance. It

thus needs a mechanism for external monitoring,

evaluation of its internal structures and procedures (e.g.

to ensure transparency), quality control of its outputs,

and any additional aspects relevant to its self-evaluation

and adaptive management.

Another striking aspect is the issue of scaling and how a

global intergovernmental platform will be able to tackle

biodiversity issues that are usually quite context-

dependent both in terms of knowledge availability

(including different type of knowledge) and in terms of

policy development and implementation. A key question

remains regarding possible regional hubs that would

provide a better link to the regional political structures

and scientific communities/networks and encourage

5 Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice

(SBSTTA) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 6 Procedure of adoption has not yet been agreed upon

3

bottom up processes: regional hubs would ensure

assessments are pertinent to the levels at which results

are most needed.

We can also identify some additional

recommendations based on SPIRAL work:

Adequate and sustained financing is a requirement

to enable any SPI to achieve objectives and it will

be key for IPBES.

Strong leadership is needed to move IPBES

forward (e.g. by drawing more resources to IPBES,

facilitating compromises, reaching out to the policy

side, providing expertise and credibility, motivating

others).

The use of „champions‟ or charismatic

„ambassadors‟ who are well-respected and highly-

placed could contribute to improving visibility and

credibility of IPBES and facilitate access to other

resources.

Inclusiveness is important, especially in processes

such as scoping, strengthens relevance and

legitimacy. To ensure inclusiveness, IPBES will need

to build and maintain collaboration with existing

networks to increase possibilities for continuity

but also ensure necessary engagement of additional

stakeholders and knowledge holders.

Conflict management (including policy on conflict

of interests) is also a key process that will require

clearly stated and appropriate methods. The use of

open scientific debate should be promoted as a

constructive „conflict‟ can also be seen as a healthy

sign of open dialogue

Looking for more information on science-policy

interfaces?

For more SPIRAL results, including separate briefs focussing

on results from other test cases, see companion SPIRAL

briefs at http://www.spiral-project.eu/content/documents

This brief is a result of research and interactions within and

around the SPIRAL project. This brief was written by Estelle

Balian and Sybille van den Hove (Median), Juliette Young and

Allan Watt (CEH), Christoph Görg (UFZ)

The SPIRAL project studies Science-Policy Interfaces

between biodiversity research and policy to improve the

conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. SPIRAL is

an interdisciplinary research project funded under the

European Community's Seventh Framework Programme

(FP7/2007-2013), contract number: 244035.

www.spiral-project.eu

info@spiral-project.eu